Jun 14, 2007, 3:06pm

Jun 15, 2007, 12:11am

Re #4: I know Zinn is a lefty, but I don't consider People's History a "liberal leaning history primer" -- I consider it all the information I never got in high school history class that certainly would have made a difference in my life. I was so pissed off when I read it because of all the lies and half truths I was fed all my life. Nice to know it's actually part of the curriculum in some schools these days.

Jun 27, 2007, 8:56am

There has been a wave of God is Bad books lately---I read The God Delusion, and despite how much I enjoy anti-religious anything, I found myself skipping whole chapters. The author sets up logical proofs about there not being a God and goes systematically down the list, discount the most common arguments for God's existence. For someone who never put any stick in these old arguments, it got tiresome. But as the divide between church and state is increasingly chewed away by right wing buttholes, I think this literary trend is important and relevant. Anyone read some of the others? WHat did you think?

Jun 27, 2007, 2:07pm

I tend to think that these books are about as helpful in convincing anyone as the guy who stands at the cable car turnaround at Fifth and Powell in San Francisco with a megaphone telling me that I'm going to Hell. ie. not much at all.

Jun 27, 2007, 7:13pm

Yep. Most def. But I'm sure there are more than a few people who, in moments of doubt either way, are able to get to a place that suits them better. They also provide a literature to fall back on in cases where the view point of a considered secularist is needed, say, in court or on a schoolboard.

Jun 28, 2007, 1:32pm

I agree with daschaich. To put a book promoting atheism in the "liberal and progressive" category seems to accept the right wing contention that liberals are atheists. Some are, some are not. Just as some conservatives are, and some are not. I expect that the separation of church and state, however, is important to all liberals and progressives, including believers, for several reasons. for one thing, members of minority religions are the most likely to suffer if that separation falters. Secondly, a state role in religion generally leads to a weakening rather than a strengthening of religion. Though why conservatives, who contend the state ruins everything it touches, would want the state to play a stronger role in something they hold especially dear, is beyond me.

Jun 28, 2007, 1:49pm

Well, I'd think then the responsibilty of progressive believers is to articulate why their belief informs their secularism.

If I were a believer, it would be an affront to me that I needed the government intervention to reach my spiritual goals. The Constitution was not designed to get anyone to Heaven, it was designed to allow each of us to pursue our own route. It seems to me that this is a favorable condition for Christians to practice their faith actively and consciously. Creating a society whose guiding principle is providing an easy path for people of faith robs credit from the faithful and the object of their faith, as well as chipping away at the health of the broader civil society.

Jun 28, 2007, 9:02pm

#20: "The Constitution was not designed to get anyone to Heaven, it was designed to allow each of us to pursue our own route."

I forgot who made the joke, but it reminds me of someone who took the old Ronald Reagan line about big government to address the problem of having an office of faith-based initiativesand said, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you be more religious."

I was browsing amazon the other day and came across some books that might appeal to liberal parents: Reviving Ophelia and Real Boys. They are both basically about how the gender-roles and expectations that our mass culture is demanding girls and boys follow are far too restrictive and instead result in maladaptive behavior. Might pick them up myself at some point.